United States v. Coronado

── United States v. Coronado ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: April 08, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 24-2177 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 04/08/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 8, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 24-2177 (D.C. No. 2:23-CR-00915-MIS-1) JESUS CORONADO, (D.N.M.) Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before PHILLIPS and McHUGH, Circuit Judges, and VRATIL, District Judge. ** _________________________________ Officers sought to execute an arrest warrant for Jesus Coronado. They spotted his truck parked outside a multi-residential housing complex, but Coronado wasn’t there. So they started surveilling the complex. Two days later, an officer saw someone matching Coronado’s description in the complex’s driveway. As the officer approached, the man fled. A car This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the * doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. The Honorable Kathryn H. Vratil, U.S. District Judge, United States ** District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation.  Appellate Case: 24-2177 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 04/08/2026 Page: 2 obstructed the officer’s view, but he thought he saw Coronado enter a small, standalone housing unit near the back of the complex. More officers soon arrived and surrounded the unit. On officers’ orders, three people exited the building. None were Coronado, and all three denied that Coronado was inside. In fact, one of them said that Coronado had fled behind the building. Still, officers believed Coronado might be inside. So one officer started drafting a search warrant. Another officer entered a neighboring yard and climbed a concrete fence behind the unit. From there, he spotted a gun on the unit’s roof. Meanwhile, the unit’s lessee gave officers permission to “go in” and look for Coronado. But officers chose to wait until a judge approved a search warrant. Soon after, as SWAT officers prepared to enter the unit, the police received a call about a man hiding in a nearby yard. Officers responded to the call, found Coronado, and arrested him. They then retrieved the gun from the unit’s roof. Based on that gun, a federal grand jury charged Coronado with possessing a firearm as a felon. He moved to suppress the gun, but the district court denied his motion. The court concluded that when officers retrieved the gun from the roof, they had acted within the scope of the lessee’s consent and lawfully seized the gun under the plain-view doctrine. Later, a jury convicted Coronado, and the court sentenced him to 120 months’ imprisonment. 2  Appellate Case: 24-2177 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 04/08/2026 Page: 3 Coronado timely appealed. He challenges the district court’s suppression decision, arguing that the officers’ climbing onto the unit’s roof exceeded the scope of the lessee’s consent. Exercising